B Gruff wrote:
> On Thursday 27 April 2006 14:02 Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Microsoft rejects claims it has prevented competition
>> | Microsoft's rivals are claiming that they have been forced
>> | to "play catch up" because the company has limited access to
>> | its software.
> See also:-
> Flynn called on Samba founder Dr Tridgell. He said: ?I was very flattered
> by the comments from Microsoft yesterday that Samba provides a complete
> interoperability solution. I?d love to use those comments on the
> website?if they were true.?
> He said Samba was a long way from offering a complete interoperability
> solution - it was only up to NT4, or 10 years behind. Samba had itself
> changed direction in response to Microsoft's attitude to interoperability.
> He described the process by which Samba uncovers the protocols as slow and
> inefficient - "we?re always playing catch up".
> Tridgell said Microsoft was making a meal of providing the protocols, as
> the programming task of creating them was split. First, a developer would
> describe the interface in an IDL file and then go on to write the
> implementation or write the code. The relevant IDL files could be put on a
> floppy disk. He said Samba had some 13,000 lines of IDL files and believed
> the total to be 30,000 lines long.
> He said Microsoft?s ?blue bubble? was a barrier of secrecy and nothing
> more. The protocols are exactly the same within the bubble as outside,
> except they are secret.
> The court heard that the protocols are based on industry standards which
> had been extended or effectively hijacked by Microsoft.
What I liked most about that Reg article was this quote
Flynn finished by saying: "Information is not kept secret because it is
important, but in fact is important because it is kept secret. Microsoft's
use of standards created by third parties is particularly pernicious